Toponym Types Deriving from River Names in Old Hungarian Erzsébet Győrffy University of Debrecen (Hungary) Gyorffy.Erzsebet@Arts.Unideb.Hu

ONOMÀSTICA 5 (2019): 115–136 | RECEPCIÓ 18.11.2019 | ACCEPTACIÓ 4.12.2019

Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian Erzsébet Győrffy University of Debrecen (Hungary) [email protected]

Abstract: This paper examines medieval Hungarian toponyms formed from river names. Within this category, settlement names occur in a large number but oronyms, the names of regions and castles with their roots in hydronyms also occur. To explore the role played by river names in the naming of other places as extensively as possible (i.e., not limited solely to the four toponym types identified), a chronologically broad set of sources has to be employed. This approach enables us to study the names of referents that were in close natural contact with rivers but which were recorded rarely, if at all, in medieval times (names of lakes, valleys, caves, gorges, passes, etc.). At the same time, hydronyms also played an active role in the creation of other toponym types, including the names of roads, bridges, mills, vineyards, meadows, etc. The temporal extension of the corpus we analyze here not only expands the group of toponym types deriving from hydronyms, but it also reveals that newly created names make up a highly diverse group in terms of the way they are created. Key words: toponyms formed from river names, river names, medieval Hungary

Tipus de topònims derivats de noms de riu en hongarès antic Resum: Aquest treball examina topònims hongaresos medievals formats a partir de noms de rius. Dins aquesta categoria hi predominen els noms d’assentaments de població, però també apareixen orònims, noms de regions i noms de castells que tenen les seves arrels en hidrònims. A fi d’esbrinar el paper que juguen els noms dels rius en la denominació d’altres llocs de la forma més àmplia possible (i no limitar-nos tan sols als quatre tipus de topònims identificats), utilitzem un conjunt de fonts cronològicament ampli. Aquest plantejament ens permet estudiar els noms de referents al·lusius a rius però que, a l’època medieval, es van registrar ben poques vegades (parlem de noms de llacs, valls, coves, gorges, congostos, etc.). Alhora, els hidrònims també van tenir un paper actiu en la creació d’altres tipus de topònims, com ara els noms de carreteres, ponts, molins, vinyes, prats, etc. La cobertura temporal del corpus que analitzem aquí no només permet ampliar el grup dels tipus de topònims derivats d’hidrònims, sinó que també evidencia que els noms nous conformen un grup molt divers quant a la forma de creació. Paraules clau: topònims formats a partir de noms de rius, noms de rius, Hongria medieval

115 Erzsébet Győrffy 1 Introduction

Water, which covers two-thirds of our globe, plays a vital role on Earth. It is essential for people and indispensable also for both the natural and built environment. During medieval times, settlements often grew up in the valleys of large rivers as these provided adequate sites to meet human needs. This in itself, however, would not necessarily be enough to attract the attention of linguists, onomasticians or historians, among others, to study the bodies of water and their names. I believe that the long-standing interest of these scholars is, to some extent, due to the role played by hydronyms as part of the most archaic layer of toponyms. The names of the largest rivers (the Danube, la Loire, la Seine, the Volga etc.) have existed for centuries, or maybe for even thousands of years, and their history shows that these names only change with considerable difficulty. At the same time, the intimate relationship forged between hydronyms and other types of toponym provides another reason for the great interest shown in these names. In this paper, I study this relationship by examining the earliest Hungarian toponymicon, the onomastic corpus of the Early Old Hungarian Era (1000–1350). (The map shows Hungary as it is today and during the Early Old Hungarian Era. Note that some names discussed in the paper lie outside Hungary’s present-day territory). To do so, I use György Györffy’s (Gy.) historical geography and the first vo- lume of the early Hungarian toponymic dictionary that covers two-thirds of Hungary during the period we are interested in (KMHsz.). I therefore focus my attention on the processes characterizing the old Hungarian toponymic system, while examining trends that are characteristic of later times wherever possible.

2 Settlement Names Formed from River Names

The largest group of toponyms formed from hydronyms is constituted by settlement names. Settlement names derived from river names represent a truly diverse group in structural terms. Thus, the name of a watercourse flowing near or around a settlement could be applied to the settlement 116 Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian

A map showing Hungary as it is today (the inner area) and during the Early Old Hungarian Era (the larger, outer area)

without any formants by means of metonymy (termed, in the general theory of onomastics, also as transonymisation: Sáros-patak ‘muddy brook’ watercourse → Sárospatak settlement), a toponymic formant could be added to the hydronym (Erecs ‘small watercourse’ watercourse → Ercsi ‘Erecs hydronym+ -i topoformant’ settlement), the toponym could be linked with a common geographical word as a second constituent denoting the type of place (Szamos watercourse → Szamosfalva ‘Szamos hydronym/falu ‘village’ settlement), or, finally, it could be added to an already existing settlement name as a first constituent (Bogdány settlement → Dunabogdány ‘settlement namedBogdány/ by the Duna’ settlement).

1 Loránd Benkő, a scholar who has conducted extensive studies of the relationship between the etymology of settlement names and hydronyms in Hungarian historical toponomastics, argues that in the case of larger bodies of water (almost as a universal principle of onomastics), such bodies of water tend to be primary name-givers: settlements are named after the rivers flowing through them (1998b, 136). However, this axiom needs to be treated with caution since, as Benkő himself notes, while this may hold for larger bodies of water, in the case of medium and small 117 Erzsébet Győrffy watercourses, name-giving may operate in the opposite direction (i.e. settlement name → hydronym).

2 In his early publications, Loránd Benkő provided numerous indications to facilitate the work of onomasticians when seeking to identify the direction in problematic name-giving processes. Based on his claims, we are likely to be faced with a hydronym–settlement name formation process if the more original nature of the hydronym is supported by semantic arguments, if the body of water is referred to by the name of the settlement beyond the name-giving settlement, and in those cases where the name includes the words patak ‘brook’, víz ’water ’, ér ‘smaller watercourse’, fő ‘spring’, or tő ‘estuary’ (Benkő 1948, 98, cf. also 1947). In what follows, I discuss these possibilities in more detail.

2.1 In the case of settlement names and hydronyms of identical form, it is often the semantic content of the name that helps us in identifying the direction of change. Names originally referring to the size of the riverbed: Keskeny (1327: Kesekun < keskeny ‘narrow’),1 vegetation by the body of water: Alma (1211/1252: Alma < alma ‘apple’), Füves (1234/1550: Fiues < fű ‘grass’ + -s topoformant), Füzes (1315: Fyzess < fűz ‘willow’ + -s topoformant), Komlós (1270/1272: Kumlovs < komló ‘hops’ + -s topoformant), Kőrös (kőrös ‘ash tree’) may be considered as settlement names that were formed from hydronyms by means of metonymy, i.e., without the addition of any linguistic elements. In the case of the Hodos (1326: Hudus < hód ‘beaver’ + -s topoformant), a secondary settlement name derived from the fauna living by the body of water, while for Szekcső ([around 1200]/after 896:Zecuseu ) the movement of the water (i.e. ‘swiftly moving water’) provided the motivation for the original hydronym. The hydronyms and settlement names in which the primary name entered Hungarian from the toponymic system of another language need to be discussed separately. In the case of these names, the original functional-semantic structure of the name in these languages may also help us. In the case of the name of Vadna, for example, based on the

1 Unless otherwise indicated next to the forms reflecting the original spelling, the data come from KMHsz. 118 Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian Sl. voda ‘water’ lexeme in the root of the name, we can consider the hydronym to be the primary toponym. This, however, can only be stated with any certainty within the Slavic toponymic system. Even by supposing the bilingualism necessary for name borrowing, we cannot determine if it was the hydronym that entered the Hungarian toponymic system first with the settlement taking its name from it or whether the hydronym → settlement name shift took place in the Slavic language and the hydronym and settlement name entered the Hungarian toponymic system at the same time. We may suppose a similarly mutual relationship in the case of names such as Béla (1228: Bela), Beszterce (1332–6/PR.: Bystricia), Bezence (1326: Bezenche), Csarnavoda (1299/1435: Charnawoda), Gadna (1320: Ganna), Ida (1275: Ida), Kolbása ([end of 13th century]: Kulkasa [ƒ: Kulbasa]), Kurca (1193–96/1216: Curta [ƒ: Curca]), Lászó (1298>1381: Lazow), Lekence ([1285]>1356: Lekenche), Ludna (1267>1353: Lubna), Miszla (1230: Misloa), Okor (1257: Okur), Ósva ([1272–90]: Ilswa), Rakaca (1273>1435: Rakocha), Revisnye (1272: Riuisne), Revistye (1228: Ryvchka), Rohozsnica (1283: Rohosnicha), Szaporca ([1177]/around 1500: Supincza [ƒ: Supurcza]), Szernye (1270/1272/1476: Zyrnua), Tapolca (1219/1550: Taplucia), Tartlau (1240: Tartillen ~ Tartilleri), Varbó (1303/1352/1450: Warbo), Zsikva (1075/ +1124/+1217: Sikua), etc. also (for the Slavic etymological antecedents see FNESz.).

2.2 In the settlement names that include hydrographic common nouns their secondary nature relative to hydronyms is even more obvious. As a result, it is clear, for example, that the settlements namedAszúág (1217/1350/1367: Ozyuagh < aszó ‘drying up’ + ág ‘river branch’), Kölesér (1138/329: Kuleser < köles ‘millet’ + ér ‘stream’), and Ér (1214/1550: Her < ér ‘stream’), Sár (1313>1350: Saar < sár ‘mud’), etc. were named after the watercourses running by or near them. In the case of some names, the structure of the original hydronym has become obsolete. Thus, for example, average name users cannot identify the old jó ‘river’ hydrographic common name in the Berettyó (1213/1550: Beruchyo < berek ‘grove’ + jó), Hájó (1249: Hewyo < hév ‘warm’ + jó) names, while the aszó ‘dried river bed’ cannot be recognized either for example in the settlement name of Szikszó (1307>1398: Zykzow < szik ~ szék ‘drying up’ + aszó). Their occurrence as settlement names is also clearly the result of secondary name formation. 119 Erzsébet Győrffy 2.3 Loránd Benkő presumes a hydronym antecedent also in the case of settlement names with thefő ‘spring’ and tő ‘estuary’ second constituents, although the circumstances of their creation are not always clear. A significant number of settlements that have thefő common noun in their name grew up at the starting point of a river, brook, watercourse (i.e., the body of water mentioned in the first constituent) and, thus, the settlement could have received its name in reference to the spring itself or its region2 due to the spatial relationship. Körösfő (1276: Crysfev < Körös hydronym + fő), Sárfő (127[8]: Sarfeu < Sár hydronym + fő), Sédfő (1330: Sedfeu < Séd hydronym + fő ). The same may hold true for the names with the tő second constituent: i.e., the Bátatő (1346: Bathathew < Báta hydronym + tő ), Hejőtő (1292: Heyeuteu < Hejő hydronym + tő ), S(z)elypestő (1319: Zelpestu < S(z)elypes hydronym + tő) settlements are situated at the estuary of the watercourse. At the same time, just how the names were created is far from straightforward as far as many of the name structures are concerned. For example, in the case of Körösfő, the most straightforward solution would be (as recorded by the majority of publications) to consider the multi- step change pattern ofKörös ‘watercourse’ → *Körös-fő ‘the spring, spring region of the Körös’ → Körösfő ‘settlement established at the spring of the Körös’; however, the intermediate name referring to the spring or the region of the spring is rarely found in records in the case of names of a similar type. Thus, we need to consider the possibility that these names were formed not by means of the spring name → settlement name metonymy but rather that a simple place-indicating structure became a proper name: Körös-fő ‘the starting point of the Körös’ → Körösfő ‘settlement’. Likewise, we should also point out that in the texts of our

2 It should be noted that the names formed with the geographical common nouns fő and tő mentioned here are most frequently recorded in charters either with the Latin locus ‘location’ categorization or included in the documents without the Latin word denoting the type of place. There are, however, no references that these would have denoted the spring of the watercourse as proper names with an identical form to the settlement name. The varying spatial position of the places with the fő and tő second constituents relative to the spring or estuary may be explained by the fact that the fő and tő common names may refer not only to the spring or estuary of the watercourse but to the upper or lower stream of the watercourse (as well). 120 Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian charters descriptions can be found that may prove just the opposite. For example, in the case of the settlement namedNádfő , a record from 1429/1510 shows that Nádfő, which was also used to name the settlement, was primarily used as the name of the brook’s spring (< nád ‘reed’ + fő). This might indicate that not all settlement names with a fő and tő second constituent were created the same way. The base of this type certainly comprises names that may be characterized with the metonymic spring name/estuary name → settlement name formation pattern, and other settlements lying in the region of the spring or estuary could have received their name by means of analogy, that is, without the actual use of the spring’s name. This is also supported by the fact that while certain places are located in the region of the spring or estuary proper (including, for example, Körösfő and Tapolcafő), other settlements with a similar name structure were established further away. For example, the settlement of Szuhafő is located 4-5 km from the spring of Szuha, while that of Jósvafő lies 5-6 km from the Jósva spring. Valéria Tóth, when studying this phenomenon, concluded that fő has become a settlement name formant and in the names formed analogically the lexeme already has the meaning of ‘a settlement located next to a watercourse (mostly at its spring)’ (2008: 182–3). When examining the contemporary settlement name system, it should also be noted that in certain cases we see name formations that were not created naturally; however, these toponyms were produced as a result of a process of national toponym organization conducted at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. These radical name changes were, partly, undertaken in such a way that the new name referred to the location of the settlement, given that names expressing a reference to the place are suitable for exact localization (cf. Mező 1982, 204–5). For example, the name Telgárt was replaced by Garamfő, and Vikárdi by Hernádfő. In the case of Répcefő, its former name was restored instead of Schwendgraben in the mid-19th century. The name of Gyöngyösfő was created thanks to the conscious Hungarianization of the German Günseck (for details see FNESz., for examples see Mező 1982, 205).

2.4 If there are several settlements along the river sharing an identical name to that of the hydronym, we may also suppose a hydronym → 121 Erzsébet Győrffy settlement name direction. For example, we have the settlements named Ida in Abaúj County during the early Old Hungarian Era. These two settlements were named after theIda watercourse of an uncertain origin; later, to end the settlement name homonymy (and, hence, that of the hydronym and settlement name), the place names received the distinguishing elements of nagy ‘large’ and kis ‘small’, thus creating the names Nagyida ([around 1330]: Noghyda) and Kisida (1331>1358: Kyus-Ida).

2.5 The size of a watercourse is a further criterion that can be successfully used to determine the etymological direction of hydronyms and settlement names of the same form: the names of larger bodies of water are known to have emerged much earlier than the names of places located next to them. TheArrabo ‘Rába’ hydronym of Indo-European origin serves as an exceptional example here: it served as the Roman name of Arrabona for the settlement of Győr located next to it, which originates from an Indo-European*ēreb(h)-, *ōrob(h)- ‘dark red, brown’ lexeme, i.e., it can be described as a hydronym etymon (cf. FNESz.). It should be noted, however, that the use of the size of the waterbody as a specific criterion should be treated with considerable caution. Firstly, because judging the size of any body of water is relative and, secondly, because it is well known that no settlements have been named after the largest rivers: for example, there are no settlements in the Carpathian Basin named *Duna ‘Danube’, *Tisza ‘Tisa’, or *Száva ‘Sava/Save’.

3 Name formation played a significant role in the early history of the Hungarian toponymic system. However, this means of formation is only rarely found among settlement names with roots in the river names of the Old Hungarian Era. This clearly indicates the peripheral nature of this means of forming words (i.e., naming settlements from hydronyms with affixes). At the same time as the Bori ((+1135/+1262/1566: Bory < Bor hydronym) and Ercsi ((+1207–8/14th century: Erchy < Erecs hydronym) names were formed using the -i affix, thed - topoformant was used to create the settlement names ofKabold (1278: Kobulth < Kobula hydronym), Selegd (1410: Selegd < Seleg hydronym) from the primary hydronym. We can 122 Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian also see a change in the opposite direction (i.e., a reduction process) in connection with the Sereden settlement name. The place lies next to the right tributary of the Kraszna, known as Seredenke, which is of Slavic origin and after which it was named (1323:Sereden < Seredenke hydronym). TheSereden form was created from the hydronym in such a way that name users left the ke- element behind (considering it a Hungarian suffix).

4 The two-component settlement names deriving from names of rivers may be divided into two groups: in one of them the hydronym referring to the location of the settlement is linked to a geographical common word that denoted the type of place as a differentiating second constituent, while in the other the river name was added to an already existing settlement name as a differentiating first constituent.

4.1 Mention should be made of a few examples of this first type, most of which originate from a time before the early Old Hungarian Era. The falu ~ falva ‘village’ second constituent is linked to the two- component hydronym in the Hódpatakfalva (1360: Hatpatokfalua < Hód-patak hydronym) name of today’s Bréb settlement. This structure is also characteristic of the Lajtafalu (1696: Laitafalu < Lajta hydronym), Sárosfalu (1397: Zarusfalua < Sáros hydronym), Szamosfalva (1345: Samusfalua < Szamos hydronym) settlement names. The fact that during the 20th century this name model was used in official name-giving may serve to demonstrate that this process may have been a more common name-formation method among natural names also. After several changes, the settlement ofGyöngyösfalu in Vas County, formed following with the merger of three villages (Ludad, Seregélyháza, and Pöse), was also named using the hydronym + falu structure (cf. FNESz.). TheDunafalva name of a new village established in 1954 was also created artificially, most probably based on the pattern of names mentioned here (cf. FNESz., Mező 1999, 100). The hydronym component of the Szamostelke (1329: Zamostheleke < Szamos hydronym) settlement name refers to its location by the Szamos, which in this case creates a name with the possessive form of the telek ‘land, lot’ common noun. Vácegres located to the north of Gödöllő was called Egrestanya (1907: Egrestanya < Egres hydronym): in this case the 123 Erzsébet Győrffy tanya ‘farm’ second constituent was added to the Egres first constituent referring to the brook lined by alders (cf. FNESz.).

4.2 Names denoting rivers and brooks appear also as having been added to existing settlement names as differentiating first constituents in a secondary manner referring to the location of the place. The historical name of Almásszentgyörgy (1350: Almasscent gurg ) ‘settlement named Szentgyörgy / next to the Almás brook’ can certainly be included in this group. The study of contemporary names should shed more light on the role of river names in old settlement names. In the case of the Almáskeresztúr (1902: Almáskeresztúr) toponym, the function of the Almás hydronym element (‘[brook] lined by apple trees’) is to differentiate the settlement originally called Keresztúr (1296: Keruchur) from the other settlements of the same name (András Mező in his study of settlement names formed from patrociny lists 109 settlements named Keresztúr ‘[village] with a church founded in honor of the True Cross]’, cf. 1996, 113–8.) Among these Keresztúr names (besides Almáskeresztúr), we find several which also include a hydronym constituent: see, for example, the Bodrogkeresztúr (1602: Bodrog-Kereszturt), Drávakeresztúr (1773: Drava Keresztur), Hejőkeresztúr (1773: Hejő-Keresztúr), Rákoskeresztúr (1799: Rákosi Keresztúr), Sajókeresztúr (1576: Sayo Kerezthur), Tiszakeresztúr (1773: Tisza-Keresztúr), Vágkeresztúr (1910: Vágkeresztúr), etc. names, where the Bodrog, Dráva, Hejő, Rákos, Sajó, Tisza, Vág names as first constituents are hydronyms. The same phenomenon can also be approached from the perspective of hydronyms, as in the case of certain toponyms the link between names is established by their main component, which includes the name of the river (while the aforementioned names constitute a name group based on the same settlement name in the second constituent). This can be seen, for example, in the case of the Bégaszederjes (1913), Bégaszentgyörgy (1873: Bega-Szentgyörgy) and Bégaszentmihály (1913), etc. settlements named after Béga, one of the tributaries of the Tisza flowing through the Bánság region. Among many other examples, we might also mention the Berettyócsohaj (1910), Berettyódéda (1903), Berettyófarnos (1911), Berettyókirályi (1904), Berettyószentmárton(1799: Berettyó Szent Márton), 124 Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian Berettyószéplak (1913) and Berettyóújfalu (1607), etc. toponyms located by the Berettyó, a tributary of the Körös (for relevant data see FNESz.). Usually, the rivers and brooks included in this position are the most significant, that is, the longest or the ones with the most important role in the region’s life, and as such these watercourses have an information value that contributes simultaneously to facilitating their differentiation and identification. We see several hydronyms as first constituents of settlement names, for example, with hydronyms of Dráva (1773: Drava Palkonya, 1903: Drávapiski, 1783–4: Dráva Szabolts), Duna (1851: Duna- Almás, 1885: Duna-Bogdány, 1863: Duna-Szerdahely), Hernád (1773: Hernád-Bűd, 1950: Hernádcéce, 1907: Hernádszentistván), Ipoly (1907: Ipolyhidvég, 1399: Ipolykeszi, 1691: Ipoli Paszto), Körös (1913: Körösbökény, 1564: Körös-Nadán, 1907: Köröstárkány), Rába (1863: Rába-Csanak, 1864: Rábagyarmat, 1907: Rábakethely), Zala (1792: Zalabér, 1898: Zalacséb, 1880: Zala-Istvánd), etc. (cf. FNESz.). Likewise, András Mező in his study analyzing Hungarian official settlement naming found in relation to settlement names with a hydronym as first constituent that the number of settlement names specified with the name of a river correlated closely with river size: 1. Tisza, 2–3. Maros, Szamos, 4. Vág, 5. Garam, 6–8. Ipoly, Rába, Sajó, 9–10. Duna, Körös (1982, 222). The relative rarity of the use ofDuna as an attribute is explained by Mező by the fact that this hydronym had already been added before the name of many settlements during official name-giving, and in this process they did not want to increase disproportionately the number of settlements with aDuna attribute (1982: 222). At the same time, Mező also notes with regard to this type that due to the linear extension of rivers their name is only of limited use as an aid for orientation. This suggests the names of smaller watercourses would be more suitable but these are barely known by the wider public (Mező 1982, 222). These hydronym first constituents, however, fulfill their role as aids to orientation and specification not in their own environment but in the wider region and, in this regard, a more precise (but strictly speaking still relative) localization might be achieved. The first constituents of the Berettyóújfalu, Dunaújfaluand Vágújfalu names (i.e. the Berettyó, Duna, Vág hydronyms) identify the particular places appropriately; however, exact localization is achieved only to an intermediate degree as the name 125 Erzsébet Győrffy user can only locate the settlement at some point along the named rivers but with no precision, given that the watercourses mentioned in the first constituent flow for many kilometers. We can add to this, albeit in a narrower context, the shorter form of Újfalu ‘new village’ which without a first constituent also provides clear identification.

3 Names of Regions Formed from Hydronyms

Hydronyms played a role in the creation of the names of regions in the earliest phase of the Hungarian language and, following the Conquest of the Carpathian Basin (896–900), they became one of the main means for naming regions, as Hungarians preferred to settle along rivers and in their valleys.

1 TheEtelköz (around 950: Aτελκούζου) name, which survived from the ancient Hungarian era (500/100 BC–896 AD), has to be mentioned in any discussion of the relationship between names of rivers and names of regions: in this name form we can identify one of the prototypes of naming regions in early times, i.e., the river name, here Etel, + köz ‘an area lying in between two features of the landscape’ structure. We can identify a great number of names created with the use of the köz ‘an area lying in between two features of the landscape’ second constituent in the onomastic corpus of the early Old Hungarian Era. The names were created mostly as unmarked possessive structures with the name of the smaller river as a first constituent: Bőköz (1217/1412: Belkus), Kompa-köz (1343: Kumpakuz), Körösköz (+1285/1572: Kereskvz); Szamos- köz (1284/1368: Zamuskuz, FNESz.); a korszakból lásd még továbbá: Bá(s)zaköz (1275: Bazakuz), Ormánköz (1264/1269/1270: Ormankuz), Rábaköz (1214/1269: Rabakuz), Temesköz (1327/1328: Temeskuz), Vágköz (1239: Wagkuz) (cf. the relevant entries of Juhász 1988), although less frequently we see marked structures in these early times too: for example, Két-jó köze (1246/1348/1408: Kethyoukyzi) ‘an area between two rivers’, and there was also a structure from a somewhat later time and one maybe used only in official written records that denotes both river names (that is, the confluent watercourses): Tisza-Bodrog köze 126 Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian (1432: Thyzabogrogkezy), Dráva-Száva köze (1706: Dráva-Szávaközi) (cf. Juhász 1988). The above examples also show that, according to the lexical nature of the first constituents, we can distinguish between two types of name for regions related to watercourses that use the köz second constituent. On the one hand, a common noun may be used to refer to the watercourse as a point of reference (Vízköz < víz ‘water’ + köz) or a syntagm made up of common nouns (Két-jó köze < két jó ‘two rivers’ + köz), while it may also have one (Ormánköz, Temesköz) or two river names as a first constituent (Tisza-Bodrog köze). Dezső Juhász concluded, in relation to this group of names of regions, that river size had an effect not only on the approach to the landscape but, by way of that, also on name-giving (1988, 33). Those names whose first constituents continue to include the names of two large rivers are, to this day, the names of larger regions (thus, for example, Dráva-Száva köze, Duna-Tisza köze) and, in this specific case, the two watercourses do not even meet in the area that receives this name. Loránd Benkő argues, in regard to the position of the Tisza-Bodrogköz type of names, that such formations could have been created as a result of the efforts of notaries (of charters) to achieve precision and, by so doing, the drafters of these documents created name structures that never really existed in spoken name usage (1984, 406).

2 A great number of the names of regions were also created from river names using the mellék(e) ‘tributary’, vidék(e) ‘region’ and mente ‘along sg.’ second constituents. Regions denoted by such names are located always in the vicinity of the watercourse included in the first constituent. That these three lexemes express the same semantic content is clearly indicated by the fact that they alternate as the second constituent of certain names. As the name of the area next to Kis- and Nagy-Homoród we can findHomoród melléke (1657: Homorod melyéke), Homoród mente (1876), as well as Homoród vidéke (1876) variants as well (see also the Galga mente ~ Galgavidék, Garam vidéke ~ Garam mente name pairs, cf. Juhász 1988). We should also note, however, that many of the names of regions with the mente second constituent could be the product of modern official, artificial name-giving (see, for example, 1900: Küküllő mentén, 1947: Nyárád mente, 1943: Nyikó mente, etc.). 127 Erzsébet Győrffy Morphologically, in the names of regions belonging to this group, the second constituent may be added to the river name first constituent both with a possessive affixmelléke ( ) and without it (mellék): see Bodrog melléke (1405: Bodrog melleke), Marcal melléke (1358: Marzolmellike), as examples of the former, and Sármellék (1356: Saarmellek), Érmellék (1455: Ermellek) of the latter (cf. Juhász 1988). The first constituents may be single (1373: Harnad-melleke < Hernád hydronym) and two-component (1437/1523: Szárazérmellyéke < Száraz-ér ‘dry stream’ hydronym) river names (cf. Juhász 1988).

3 In some names of regions (mostly not from the early Old Hungarian Era), the föld ‘ land’, hát ‘ridge’, kanyar ‘bend’, mező ‘field’, szeg ~ szög ‘corner’, zug ‘corner’ geographical common names are included next to the name of the watercourse. As for names of regions recorded later, we find that the zög ~ szeg ‘corner’ second constituent appears in the name of Kalotaszeg (1443: Kalathazeg). The first constituent of the name is probably the Kalota hydronym but it is also possible that a settlement of the same name could be considered in this position. The zug ‘corner’ common noun has a similar role to the szeg ~ szög noun; cf. Tiszazug (1884, FNESz.). The name of Aranyosfölde (Aranyos hydronym + föld ‘land’, 1593: Aranyos-földén, Juhász 1988) refers to the tributary of the Aranyos river in Transylvania, and the name of Dunakanyar (Duna hydronym + kanyar ‘bend’), referring to the region located in a bend of the Danube, is a modern formation. The hát lexeme also plays a role in the names of regions formed from hydronyms: the lexeme refers to a land especially suitable for settlement and agriculture protruding from a wetland area (Juhász 1988: 98). This second constituent can be seen in the modern names of Szamoshát 1881: Szamoshátiak), Tiszahát (1708: Tiszahátrúl), Túrhát (1975: Túrhát), etc. next to the hydronym attribute (cf. Juhász 1988). The mező ‘field’ common noun is attached to the hydronym first constituent in such names of regions as Kenyérmező (1528: Knier-meÑe), Morvamező (1864: Morvamezőnek), és a Rákosmező (1451: Rakusmezew), etc. (cf. FNESz.).

128 Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian 4 For a comprehensive overview, we should also mention the names of Dunántúl (around 1566: Dunántúl), Tiszántúl (1535: Thyzan Thwl) that were formed from a structure of morphological value, the records of which are to be found in the mid-Hungarian Era (1526–1772) (cf. FNESz.). Besides reflecting the central Hungarian approach to the landscape, these names also include the point of view of the name-giver. In these structures, the names of Hungary’s two largest rivers (Duna, Tisza) appear in the -n adverbial affix form following the grammatical rules of the túl ‘beyond something’ postposition: Tiszán, Dunán. It took a long time for these names to become established, though the study and teaching of geography during the 19th and 20th centuries had a strong impact on their consolidation (cf. Juhász 1988). Based on records from the Old Hungarian Era, it seems that the Tiszántúl region was, at that time, known as Tiszael, whereby the same old elü ~ elv ‘an area lying beyond something’ element was added to the river name (Tisza hydronym + elü ~ elv ‘beyond something’), mirroring the case of Erdély ‘Transylvania’ and the erdő ‘forest’ noun (around 1150/13th–14th century: Erdeuelu < erdő ‘forest’ + elü ~ elv ‘beyond something’, FNESz.).

5 From the earliest days of the Old Hungarian Era, the names of regions were being created from hydronyms without any second constituents or formants. Among the names of regions created metonymically, some were formed from single – Csík (1324: Chijk), Gyergyó (1332–7: Gorgio), Kalota (1213/1550: Kalota), Kászon (1462: Kazon) – and some from two- component hydronyms: Kölesér (1332–7: Kuleser < Köles-ér hydronym) (cf. Juhász 1988). The name of the region ofBarca (1211/1231: Borza) merits a separate mention, probably created from the hydronym → name of region metonymic process, which was expanded with the -ság/-ség suffix that became a part of the naming of regions in the 15th–16th centuries and then functioned as a typical formant for names of regions, thus creating the name of Barcaság (before 1526/1526–4: Barczaság).

129 Erzsébet Győrffy 4 Oronyms Formed from Hydronyms

In the early phase of Hungarian toponym formation, names of watercourses played a central role as they served as key points of reference for orientation. This can be explained by the fact that settlement took place first along the larger rivers and valleys and only slowly reached the higher areas of the more inhospitable, harsh mountain regions. If people only became familiar with these barren regions at a later date, then the creation and diffusion of oronyms as a name type must also have occurred later (cf. Kiss L. 2005, 100). Indeed, that the birth of oronyms occurred mostly later than that of hydronyms in the Hungarian name system may be the reason why we only find a few names with the hydronym → oronym pattern in the name system. After the creation and consolidation of the settlement and settlement name system, hydronyms partly lost their former significance; for this reason, we find many more names with their roots in settlement name antecedents among the motivations for oronyms. Of course, concerning the names of natural objects, it should be stressed that in all cases the basis of name-giving is provided by the relief features; thus, there may be not only onomatosystematical but also geographical reasons for the absence, or rare presence, of the aforementioned name-giving method. A few examples, however, should serve to illustrate this relationship. The name of the body of water was used without the addition of any linguistic elements (metonymically) for the designation of the Medves Mountain (1290/1479: Medus, FNESz.). Katalin Reszegi in her paper on the relationship between hydronyms and oronyms also mentions the oronyms of Golboka, Holboka formed from single-component hydronyms also by means of metonymy, as well as Aszalósér, Pogányosér from two- component hydronyms (from the Aszalós-ér and Pogányos-ér hydronyms, 2007: 41). In the oronyms of Kakulló-hát and Zalatna bérce with records in the early Old Hungarian Era the first constituent is a single-component hydronym (Kakulló, Zalatna), with the hát ‘mountain ridge’ and bérc ‘mountain’ geographical common word added (cf. Reszegi 2007, 41). In his inaugural address on oronyms, given at the Academy of Sciences, Lajos Kiss mentions hydronym antecedents also in the case of the names 130 Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian of Rakottyás-tető (1887: Rakottyás tető), Szék halma (1722: Székhalma), Üvér-tető (1870: Üvertető), etc. with the same structure, whereby another common word indicating a type of place (tető ‘top’, halom ‘hillock’) was attached to the single-component hydronym first constituent (Rakottyás, Szék, Üvér hydronym), thus creating a two-component name (cf. 2005, 16).

5 Names of Castles Formed from River Names

Although names of castles are not among the most typical toponyms, they have a natural relationship with hydronyms reflecting the original purposes behind the building of castles (cf. Benkő 2003, 142, and 1998a, 152). On the relationship between castle names and hydronyms in name- giving, Loránd Benkő claims in his study of the name of Borsova that the protective function of castles meant they would often be partly surrounded by a river and so received their name from the watercourse (1998b). Helga Kovács in her doctoral dissertation on medieval castle names records that a seventh of all castles in the early Old Hungarian Era were named after some kind of watercourse (while this proportion had dropped significantly by the late Old Hungarian Era) (2017a, 87). She argues for a clearly hydronym → castle name metonymic change in the case of many toponyms due to the meaning of the etymon present in the hydronym: thus, the hydronym is primary in the case of the Árva 1333: castri Arwa), Bodrog (around 1200: castrum Budrug), Csezmice (1244/1379: terra castri Chesmiche), Gerzence (1250–1270: castri Gressenicha), Korpona (1351: Castris Korpona), Krassó (1292, before 1241: castro Crassu), Turóc (1243: castrum Turuz), Orbász (1293: possessiones, terras Urbaz cum castris), Szana (1256: comite de Zana), Zala (1222: castrum Zala), etc. castle names (2017b). Among the castle names with a hydronym antecedent, Loránd Benkő also considers the two-component hydronym + vár ‘castle’ structure to be frequent (1998a, 104). In relation to some of these names we need to consider a three-phase process, i.e., first, a single-component castle name was created metonymically from the hydronym, then this name was complemented with the vár geographical common word second 131 Erzsébet Győrffy constituent: e.g., Küküllő hydronym (1252/around 1290/1588: fluvios Kykullu, Gy. 3, 556) → Küküllő castle name (1319/1320: sub castro Kukulleu, Gy. 3, 556) → Küküllővár castle name (1344: castrum Kukullewuar, Gy. 1, 552). Such a formation can be supposed, for example, in the case of names like Borsova(vára) (1232: castrum Borsoa, 1308: Borzauauara), Temes(vár) (1212: castrum regium Themes, 1323: Castrum (regis) de Themeswar), Torna(vára) (1357: castrum Thorna, 1406: castrum Tornawara), Valkó(vár) (around 1200: castrum Vlcou, 1332–1337: Wolkowar), etc. in this era. Due to a lack of data, it might also be supposed that the Marosvár name ([14th century] after 1000:Moroswar ) may have been created without the intermediate metonymic phase, i.e., directly from the hydronym. In the Old Hungarian Era onomastic corpus, cases can be seen in which there are castle names and settlement names of hydronym origin with identical forms. In such cases, we need to consider (at least theoretically) a castle name → settlement name developmental direction, although in practice the name of the castle and the settlement cannot really be separated. The names of Boldvakő (1300: Bolduaku) and Marosvár ([14th century] after 1000:Morisena ~ Moroswar) formed as attributive compounds with the kő ‘rock’ and vár ‘castle’ second constituent at first certainly denoted the castle itself, and then the settlement created there. Most probably in the case of the Boldva ([around 1295]: p. et castr. Boldua), Borsova ([around 1200]/903: Borsoa), Bózsva (+1264/1324: Borsua), etc. identical hydronym, castle and settlement names we see the same etymological process, theoretically, however, we may suppose multiple metonymy in this case (hydronym → castle name → settlement name).

6 Other Toponym Types Formed from River Names

1 On a theoretical level, any type of toponym may be created from the name of a watercourse. We can find names referring to the hydrographic relationship of running and still water, for example, in the onomastic sources used by the present author from the Old Hungarian Era: Szartos- tó (1270/369: Sartos tou tó < Szartos river name+ tó ‘lake’), Úz vize (1330: Wzwyze tó < Úz river name + víz ‘water’).

132 Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian 2 Valleys were also often named after the watercourse running through them. Almás-völgy (1317/1323: Almasweugh) was created from the compound of the Almás brook name and the völgy ‘valley’ geographical common word, while the Vízfolyás name form (1350: Wyzfolyas), which is also the name of a valley according to a charter, was created metonymically after the hydronym formed from a common word without a formant (vízfolyás ‘watercourse’). The first constituent ofBor völgye (1275: Burwelge) features the name of the Bor brook (cf. FNESz.).

3 Likewise, we can find names among several other toponym types which were created based on their local relationship with some kind of watercourse: thus, for example, we can talk about names of passes and caves also deriving from hydronyms. TheVlára-szoros (1863) was named after its right tributary, where the name may be described with the Vlára hydronym + szoros ‘pass’ structure. The name of the Tömösi- hágó was created from the -i adjectival suffix of theTömös hydronym and the hágó ‘pass’ geographical common word. The Csörgő-lyuk cave name (1893) consists of the hydronym + lyuk ‘hole’ name constituents and the motivation for name-giving was that the Csörgő-patak brook springs from the entrance of the cave.

7 Summary

We can draw the following conclusions based on this overview of the relationship between hydronyms and other toponym types. From medieval times, settlement names formed from the names of rivers were found in large numbers in the records, a phenomenon attributable to the fact that the names of settlements were beginning to be extensively documented in official charters. In addition to these names, we also find oronyms and the names of regions and castles rooted in river names in the old toponymic corpus. To be able to consider the role of river names in the naming of other places as extensively as possible, in this article I have had to expand the source materials chronologically so as to include the names of referents that are in close natural contact with rivers but which were not, or which were only rarely, recorded in medieval times (i.e. names of lakes, valleys, 133 Erzsébet Győrffy caves, gorges, passes, etc.). Obviously, hydronyms also played an active role in the creation of other toponym types, including the names of roads, bridges, mills, vineyards, meadows, etc. To explore these, however, a detailed analysis of the contemporary toponymic corpus has first to be undertaken. Extending the corpus under analysis in this way not only expanded the group of toponym types derived from hydronyms, it also highlighted that the newly created names make up a highly diverse group in terms of their etymology. Metonymic name-giving (i.e. when a hydronym is turned into the name of a place related to it without adding any formants) has a strong presence in the early Old Hungarian Era especially in the case of the names of castles, settlements, and regions. In later eras, however, we see the dominance of complex, two-component name structures in the creation of other toponyms formed from hydronyms (especially microtoponyms), as the name of the river was joined with a geographical common word second constituent denoting the type of place, thus creating a two-component toponym. Among settlement names, complementation with a hydronym first constituent has also been shown to be a productive name formation method. Data reveal that this name formation process was already present in medieval times but with the emergence and consolidation of the settlement name system it assumed an increasingly important role in distinguishing between referents of the same name.

References Benkő, L. 1947. Víz- és helységneveink viszonyához. [The relationship between Hungarian hydronyms and settlement names.] Magyar Nyelv 43: 259–63. — . 1948. A székelyföldi szláv eredetű víznevek kérdéséhez. [To the question of the hydronyms of Slavic origin in Szeklerland.] Magyar Nyelv 44: 95–101. — . 1988. A történeti nyelvtudomány alapjai. [Fundamentals of historical linguistics.] Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó. — . 1998a. Név és történelem. Tanulmányok az Árpád-korról. [Names and history. Studies of the Árpád Era.] Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 134 Toponym types deriving from river names in Old Hungarian Benkő, L. 1998b. Bors vezértől Borzsováig. [From Chief Bors to Borzova.] Nyelv. Stílus. Irodalom. Köszöntő könyv Péter Mihály 70. születésnapjára, ed. Zoltán, A. 62–7. Budapest: ELTE Keleti Szláv és Balti Filológiai Tanszék. — . 2003. Beszélnek a múlt nevei. Tanulmányok az Árpád-kori tulajdonnevekől. [Names of the past speak to us. Studies of the proper names of the Árpád Era.] Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. FNESz. = Kiss, L. 1988. Földrajzi nevek etimológiai szótára. I–II. [Etymological dictionary of geographical names.] Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. Gy. = Györffy, Gy. 1966–1998. Az Árpád-kori Magyarország történeti földrajza. I–IV. [Historical geography of Hungary in the age of Árpád Dynasty. I–IV.] Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó. Juhász, D. 1988. A magyar tájnévadás. [Region names in Hungary.] Nyelvtudományi Értekezések 126. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Kiss, L. 2005. A hegyek és hegységek nevei. [Names of hills and mountains.] Székfoglalók a Magyar Tudományos Akadémián. 2001. Társadalomtudományok, chief ed. Vizi, E. Sz., 99–118. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia. KMHsz. = Hoffmann, I. chief ed. 2005. Korai magyar helynévszótár. 1. [A dictonary of early Hungarian toponyms. I.] A Magyar Névarchívum Kiadványai 10. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Magyar Nyelvtudományi Tanszéke. Kovács, H. 2017a. Várnevek a középkori Magyarországon. [Castle names in the medieval Hungary.] PhD dissertation. Manuscript. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem. — . 2017b. Az ispáni várak neveinek névtani vizsgálata. [Onomastic study of the earliest castle names.] Helynévtörténeti Tanulmányok 13: 7–61. Mező, A. 1982. A magyar hivatalos helységnévadás. [Official settlement name giving in Hungary.] Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. — . 1996. A templomcím a magyar helységnevekben. (11–15. század.) [Patrocinies in Hungarian settlement names.] Budapest, Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopédia Munkaközösség.

135 Erzsébet Győrffy Mező, A. 1999. Adatok a magyar hivatalos helységnévadáshoz. [Supplement to official settlement name giving in Hungary.] Nyíregyháza: Bessenyei György Tanárképző Főiskola Magyar Nyelvészeti Tanszéke. Reszegi, K. 2007. A hegynevek és más helynévfajták kapcsolata. [The relationship between oronyms and other types of place names.] Nyelvi identitás és a nyelv dimenziói, ed. Hoffmann, I. & Juhász, D., 37– 43. Debrecen–Budapest: Nemzetközi Magyarságtudományi Társaság. Tóth, V. 2008. Településnevek változástipológiája. [Change tipology of settlement names.] A Magyar Névarchívum Kiadványai 14. Debrecen: Debreceni Egyetem Magyar Nyelvtudományi Tanszéke.

136